3 ms·

I read the WaPo article and see no financial rationale for forcing this relationship between contractors and commercial organizations. And since when is it wro

I read the WaPo article and see no financial rationale for forcing this relationship between contractors and commercial organizations. And since when is it wrong to "put someone on the spot" by asking questions? The "increasingly fissured economy" argument is an old one but the solutions are not at all clear. Legislating more lawsuits, forcing contractors and temps into an employee relationship with 3rd parties -- this is a temporary favor to unions and wage-and-benefit advocates but doesn't solve the real problems which are the prohibitive cost basis of hiring full time employees in today's economy in the U.S. I would address the cost basis first, and make it less expensive to hire full timers, and then we'll see more hiring of full timers.

dalke 11y ago
There's no financial rationale because the case didn't concern financial rationale. This is a question of how to interpret the existing National Labor Relations Act. Thus, your comments make no sense. Regarding "put someone on the spot"; you are veering close to "JAQing off" territory. The question you had were general ones addressed by the article, and here are many easily found sources that would give you the insight you are looking for. Your one line response to shawnee_ did not give any evidence that you understood the context, or cared to do your own research, it had a implicit assumption that a random HN should educate you, a full answer would have required multiple paragraphs, and would unlikely to be correct as HN readers tend to not be aware of labor law. Plus, shawnee_ was clearly expressing an opinion and not trying to make provable statements that can be backed up by the specifics you wanted. Following up as you did is hard to distinguish from sealioning.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
>the real problems which are the prohibitive cost basis of hiring full time employees in today's economy in the U.S. [citation needed]. What's the above-salary overhead on hiring someone in the USA vs other countries vs the USA at other times when the labor market was tighter?

dalke 11y ago

There's no financial rationale because the case didn't concern financial rationale. This is a question of how to interpret the existing National Labor Relations Act. Thus, your comments make no sense. Regarding "put someone on the spot"; you are veering close to "JAQing off" territory. The question you had were general ones addressed by the article, and here are many easily found sources that would give you the insight you are looking for. Your one line response to shawnee_ did not give any evidence that you understood the context, or cared to do your own research, it had a implicit assumption that a random HN should educate you, a full answer would have required multiple paragraphs, and would unlikely to be correct as HN readers tend to not be aware of labor law. Plus, shawnee_ was clearly expressing an opinion and not trying to make provable statements that can be backed up by the specifics you wanted. Following up as you did is hard to distinguish from sealioning.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

>the real problems which are the prohibitive cost basis of hiring full time employees in today's economy in the U.S. [citation needed]. What's the above-salary overhead on hiring someone in the USA vs other countries vs the USA at other times when the labor market was tighter?